Presuppositionalism Q&A

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're not, as long as when you said, "the full set of presuppositions of the unbeliever include 'there is no god' and he will reject any argument that contradicts that presupposition," you meant of course that the unbeliever is behaving perfectly consistently with his presupposition. (And I'm pretty sure you do mean that.)

Changed the color to red in the part I have a question about. I would think that the reprobate live inconsistently with their presupposition that there is no God ... they borrow from the Christian world-view any time they even mention right and wrong, good and bad, or complain about someone giving them a raw deal. Yes?

Yes, I agree with that. I meant that regarding the specific situation where they "weigh the evidence" for God's existence, if they were consistent in their unbelief in that pinpointed instance, then they would reject the conclusion that God exists.

-----Added 6/26/2009 at 12:26:03 EST-----

[Regarding Jesus' existence]

No. For the simple reason that they are not absolute systems. Islam, Judaism, etc leave an out. Judaism, as practiced today, no longer claims exclusivity in any form whatsoever. As for Islam, they end up claiming to know nothing. They both fail to pass my litmus test for an absolute system.

I'm not quite understanding your criteria for what an "absolute system" is, and why something has to actually make a claim to exclusivity in order to be one.

It seems as if you're defining a category that only Christianity can fit into, and then you impose a superfluous criterion (if one part is true, then the whole is true) in order to make your case. But if Christianity is the only worldview in that category, then there's no point in having such a criterion.
 
Clark, it may just be that my understanding of presupp (or any system) is always filtered through what I see as its logical conclusions. For example, I critique atheism by filtering through what I would be like as an atheist (amoral and selfish). If the conclusion is manifestly false, then the premises were false.

Confessor said:
I'm not quite understanding your criteria for what an "absolute system" is, and why something has to actually make a claim to exclusivity in order to be one.

My criterion for an absolute system is that it must claim to be exclusive--precisely because truth is always exclusive. If the truth isn't sure of itself enough to claim that it is absolutely true, then it's not True Truth.

The thing about an absolute system is that it's either true or it isn't. "God exists" is either true or false. There are, in fact, no shades of possibility around it (possible world theory doesn't apply to God, because He has necessary existence). In fact, this could be said of any absolute statement except that many (ie: unicorns exist) are ones on which we would have to suspend judgment for lack of evidence.

At any rate, I'm leaving tomorrow for vacation and will be back after the 4th of July. Hopefully by then I'll have read Calvin's Institutes and have thought out a more complete epistemological alternative to presuppositionalism. I have a respect for presupp--I just see it leading in directions I can't go.
 
Clark, it may just be that my understanding of presupp (or any system) is always filtered through what I see as its logical conclusions. For example, I critique atheism by filtering through what I would be like as an atheist (amoral and selfish). If the conclusion is manifestly false, then the premises were false.

That's perfectly fine -- so long as the conclusions you think are false are actually false. Again, this would signify the importance of espousing your views on some other thread; if you have good reason to believe why Theonomy is wrong I want to hear it. Let's not keep our views all to ourselves. :)

My criterion for an absolute system is that it must claim to be exclusive--precisely because truth is always exclusive. If the truth isn't sure of itself enough to claim that it is absolutely true, then it's not True Truth.

Do you mean it has to have a revelation which claims this? I know a lot of atheists who claim absolute truth for their position.

The thing about an absolute system is that it's either true or it isn't. "God exists" is either true or false. There are, in fact, no shades of possibility around it (possible world theory doesn't apply to God, because He has necessary existence). In fact, this could be said of any absolute statement except that many (ie: unicorns exist) are ones on which we would have to suspend judgment for lack of evidence.

That propositions are either true or false does not necessitate that a system of propositions is either wholly true or wholly false.

I hope you enjoy your vacation (especially the Institutes part :D)!
 
Real quick.

Confessor said:
Do you mean it has to have a revelation which claims this? I know a lot of atheists who claim absolute truth for their position.

Not necessarily a revelation. Don't forget that atheism is a proposition, not a system. Existentialism is a system that may or may not be atheistic, but atheism itself is a proposition.

That propositions are either true or false does not necessitate that a system of propositions is either wholly true or wholly false.

An absolute system, where the truth of one proposition is inextricably tied with the truth of all the others (such as Christianity), would be either wholly true or wholly false. With Christ, there are two options: acceptance or rejection. The idea is to get the unbeliever to a point where those are his options. We're eliminating the middle ground (as opposed to common ground).

Anyway, I'm gone.
 
Not necessarily a revelation. Don't forget that atheism is a proposition, not a system. Existentialism is a system that may or may not be atheistic, but atheism itself is a proposition.

In that case there are still atheistic systems.

An absolute system, where the truth of one proposition is inextricably tied with the truth of all the others (such as Christianity), would be either wholly true or wholly false. With Christ, there are two options: acceptance or rejection. The idea is to get the unbeliever to a point where those are his options. We're eliminating the middle ground (as opposed to common ground).

It is true that an absolute system "where the truth of one proposition is inextricably tied with the truth of all the others" would be either wholly true or wholly false, but I don't see how Christianity is one such system. Again, take the proposition "Jesus existed." Other worldviews share this. They might view it in a different light (e.g. "The God-man existed" versus "That hippie from Nazareth existed"), and they might not be able to say that Jesus existed without contradicting their presupposition; but nonetheless that proposition is in fact present in worldviews other than Christianity.
 
I'm not sure that I understand the "proposition" versus "system" statement. It seems to me that this "proposition" controls all evaluation of evidence, which would suggest that it is, in fact, an underlying assumption or "systemless system" if we can imagine such.

If an atheist were giving a lecture and a prophet stood up and said, "Here's proof", and subsequently the atheist's notes began to levitate and flew across the room, apart from the quickening of the Holy Spirit, the atheist would have to conclude (based on his system of ultimate contingency) that there is some physical force at work heretofore undiscovered. In other words, a naturalistic explanation must be behind the event. That is, his atheism governs his evaluation of evidence. That's pretty systemic, don't you think?

On the other hand, you are right. He's asserting the proposition (which he then takes as his system), but he can only make that assertion by first assuming the Christian system. Otherwise, his assertion doesn't make sense. Language doesn't make sense in his espoused world of ultimate contingency.
 
So my books came today! :up: I have been flipping around in Van Til's Apologetic by Bahnsen and even at first glance there is some great information. This book is no joke though. I'm kind of happy I'll be starting with the smaller ones (probably Van Til's pamphlet "Why I Believe in God" even though it smells funky). Thanks again for the suggestions!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top